/thg/ - treadhead general

>>34959934
t-34 hands down

File: A7V tank 'Elfriede'.jpg (978KB, 1786x2077px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1786x2077px

>>34959957
why?

>>34959957
But why?

>>34959962
Is the A7V the earliest example of the pike nose?

>>34959962
Better armor, better gun. But in a 1v1 panzer would win, as the crew of the panzer actually knows what the fuck their doing, and we're not just taken from the wheat fields and put inside a tank.

>>34959962
>>34959975
It was useless with low velocity gun and maybe slightly better than T-34 (non 85) with a high velocity gun, while being produced in much, much lower numbers.

>>34959985
>Better armor, better gun.
But there's far more behind those points. Eg what use is a better gun if your optics are shit?

>>34960006
>Eg what use is a better gun if your optics are shit?
What use in a better anything if you have one tank, while the enemy has five?

>>34959985
>Better armor, better gun.

That's a late-model Panzer IV not the early Panzer IV.

>>34960013
That's it. War isn't won by spergtardism, it's won by mass and violent action.

Five cannon can be used against enemy infantry and equipment when not in tank v. tank or very common tank v. ATG combat.

War is a battle of systems of systems of systems but retards can't think that deep and want duels. That's why /k/ is home of stupid questions dumb niggers were too lazy to google.

BTW the Wehrmacht fucking lost.

>>34959996
>It was useless with low velocity gun and maybe slightly better than T-34 (non 85) with a high velocity gun, while being produced in much, much lower numbers.
Low velocity gun is irrelevant, what's in the OP is an F2 with the long 7,5 gun which was more than sufficient.

>What use in a better anything if you have one tank, while the enemy has five?
So what's the point in discussing the individual merits of the tanks? Thread is over before it began.

>>34960038
>So what's the point in discussing the individual merits of the tanks?

Not much. It's a stupid noob question which instantly flags noob as disgustingly lazy.

>>34960038
>So what's the point in discussing the individual merits of the tanks?
Ease of production is an individual merit which is, by the way, one the most important ones.

File: Challenger_II_main_battle_tank_prepares_to_fire_its_main_gun_on_a_target_clipped_rev_1 (1).jpg (2MB, 2508x1672px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2508x1672px

dumping

File: NVA T-72.jpg (2MB, 4308x2669px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4308x2669px

>>34960435
is this a model or an actual Tiger II?

File: 1482531083085.jpg (200KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 960x960px

>>34960450
I have no idea, looks like it might be a model unfortunately

File: Iranian stealth jet.jpg (134KB, 1024x708px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1024x708px

What happened to the original thguy? I miss my weekly threads

>>34959934
The Sherman.

File: 20170726_111312.jpg (2MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5312x2988px

Here's a picture of our tanks boresighting before gunnery last week.

File: Sherman 122mm.jpg (209KB, 691x409px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 691x409px

>>34960126
Super Shermans you say?

>>34960450
model

>>34959962
Better armor. T-34 forced Germans to shift to at least long 75mm. If Soviets used T-IV Germans could've leave 3.7 cm and 5 cm guns and completely decimate soviets with numbers.

I like how nobody has mentioned the absolute shit tier reliability of the Panther.

>>34962123
>I like how nobody has mentioned the absolute shit tier reliability of the T-34.
Now it fits the thread.

>>34962123
nobody has mentioned the Panther, you mongoloid

>>34962151
Average combat life of tank is only 5 minutes so it didn't matter.

>>34962151
spontaneous combustion is reliable now

>>34962163
why am I so retarded
please don't hurt me